FEW U.S. senators are as outgoing and aggressively talkative as Robert Torricelli. But when it comes to actually dealing publicly with his ongoing ethics problems, Torricelli seems to have taken a vow of silence.

The New Jersey Democrat, who’s up for re-election in November, spent four hours behind closed doors Monday answering questions from the staff of the Senate Ethics Committee – none of whose members reportedly showed up for the meeting.

It was the first time since allegations of political corruption first surfaced that Torricelli actually testified under oath.

But he wasn’t about to treat Garden State voters – or anyone else, for that matter – to the kind of public spectacle that delighted C-SPAN viewers who caught Ohio Rep. Jim Traficant’s bizarre testimony before the House Ethics Committee.

He’s not even about to authorize release of a transcript of his testimony: “That’s for the committee to decide,” Torricelli declared – a surprisingly muted response from a guy who claims he’s been “publicly raped” by the investigation.

Granted, that’s the way the committee normally chooses to operate. But it’s also par for the course in this ongoing sordid spectacle.

Torricelli is quick to wield outrageous allegations against others. (In 1997, recall, he ripped the press for focusing on “trivial” details after he was caught out claiming to have been traumatized by the 1950s Senate probe into organized crime – hearings that took place before he was born.) But in this case, he’s taken great pains to restrict the amount of information available to the public.

Which is one reason why he moved in court to keep secret the details of the cooperation prosecutors got from his chief accuser, businessman David Chang.

Chang, one of seven people who’ve pleaded guilty to making illegal contributions to Torricelli, says he lavished thousands in cash and gifts on the senator in return for political favors. But the Justice Department has been of two minds about that testimony.

On the one hand, it declined to indict Torricelli after a lengthy investigation, most likely because Chang was a flawed witness and cases like this require an impossibly high standard of proof.

Torricelli insisted publicly that the non-indictiment meant he’d been “vindicated” – although the U.S. attorney pointedly referred her findings to the Ethics Committee. And in a later proceeding, the government prepared a memorandum urging a lenient sentence for Chang – which it wouldn’t have done unless his testimony checked out.

Indeed, the document led Judge Alfred Wolin to declare that “much of what Chang told the government was material and credible.”

But the Ethics Committee won’t be hearing from Chang – who, through his attorney, has asked to testify. Torricelli’s take: That “would make a mockery of the process.”

Not that Torricelli has all that much to worry about: The Ethics Committee isn’t exactly known for its fierce discipline of fellow members.

As former Sen. Howell Heflin (D-Ala.) said when stepping down from its chairmanship a decade ago, “There are just too many inherent problems with senators judging senators. You censure someone, and the next day you’re seeking their vote.”

But the voters could be a different story.

Polls repeatedly show that New Jersey voters are embarrassed and dissatisfied with Torricelli; they agree with him on every issue – save ethics. He has a net unfavorable rating that is growing by the day, and all but Democrats say they’re dissatisfied with his job performance.

Indeed, only 37 percent of those surveyed said they thought he has “the honesty and integrity to serve effectively.”

Problem is, the Republicans are running a low-key campaign with a no-name candidate, millionaire businessman Douglas Forrester. And while polls show him potentially within striking distance – anywhere from 8 to 14 percentage points behind – his campaign has failed to take off.

For one thing, Torricelli has kept his opponent on the defensive, working to define him before the Republican can define himself. He’s painted Forrester as a tool of drug companies; now, with corporate scandals rising to the fore, he’s accused his foe of funding techniques that “reek of illegality.”

If Forrester doesn’t find an effective way to fight back soon, those tactics will likely work. The state hasn’t elected a Republican senator since 1972 – and seems to have resigned itself to corrupt officials.

Cliff Zukin, head of Rutgers’ Eagleton Institute, told the AP last month that “the only thing [Forrester] has going for him is that he’s not Bob Torricelli.” Still, he added, “that could be considerable.”

In the best of all possible worlds, it would be. But this isn’t the best of all possible worlds – it’s only New Jersey.